{
  "context": "The change is real, the containment check is affirmative, and the developer shipped a test named after the defect that passes. The predicted unaided answer reads the diff, sees String(row.postal_code) where a coercion used to be, runs the suite, sees green, and reports the defect fixed. But the reporter's steps go through importCsv, and the guard was added to normaliseJsonRow; normaliseCsvRow still calls Number(row.postal_code), so fixtures/codes.csv still yields 1234. The developer's test exercises a path the reporter never used and would have passed either way for this input route. The only thing that settles it is executing the reporter's own steps verbatim against fixtures/codes.csv, which still fails - so the defect is not fixed and goes back, with containment already established so the reopen is about the code and not about a stale deployment.",
  "type": "weighted_checklist",
  "checklist": [
    {
      "name": "Record delivered",
      "description": "A file qa-record/BUG-4471.md exists and states a decision. Scores zero if absent.",
      "max_score": 4
    },
    {
      "name": "Executes the reporter's own steps against the CSV path",
      "description": "importCsv is actually run against fixtures/codes.csv, exactly as step 2 of the report specifies, and the real result for row c_1 (postalCode 1234, a number) appears in the record. Reasoning about the source without running it, but correctly reporting 1234 for the CSV path, scores at most half. Never exercising importCsv at all scores zero.",
      "max_score": 32
    },
    {
      "name": "Concludes the defect is not fixed and must go back",
      "description": "The decision is that the defect still reproduces and returns to the developer. Recommending Verified, or Verified with a caveat, scores zero. A hold-and-investigate decision that still names the CSV path as failing scores at most half - the evidence supports a definite answer here, since containment was proven and the original steps still fail.",
      "max_score": 24
    },
    {
      "name": "MUST NOT accept the developer's test as the confirming evidence",
      "description": "MUST NOT. tests/import-json.test.js must not be offered as proof this defect is fixed: it drives importJson while the report drives importCsv, so it never exercised the reported failure. Citing its green result, or a green npm test run, as the confirmation evidence scores zero on this criterion.",
      "max_score": 16
    },
    {
      "name": "Names the untouched code path precisely",
      "description": "The record points the developer at normaliseCsvRow in src/importer.js and its Number(row.postal_code) coercion, stating that the guard landed only on normaliseJsonRow. Reporting 'the fix does not work' without locating the surviving coercion scores zero.",
      "max_score": 14
    },
    {
      "name": "Observed versus expected stated concretely",
      "description": "The record gives the observed value (1234, number) against the expected value ('01234', string) for row c_1 from fixtures/codes.csv. A narrative such as 'leading zeros are still lost' with no values scores at most half.",
      "max_score": 10
    },
    {
      "name": "Distinguishes a code problem from a deployment problem",
      "description": "The record states that staging (commit 9fa30b1) does contain 7c2ea55, so the failure is attributable to the change itself rather than to an undeployed fix. Omitting containment entirely, or blaming a stale build, scores zero.",
      "max_score": 10
    },
    {
      "name": "Leaves the code alone",
      "description": "src/importer.js is unmodified. Editing normaliseCsvRow - even correctly - scores zero on this criterion: the task is to decide and report, and a self-applied fix destroys the evidence the developer needs.",
      "max_score": 6
    }
  ]
}